Increased disability benefit for young disabled
Supreme Court judgment 23 November 2021, HR-2021-2276-A, (case no. 21-049970SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
The State represented by the Directorate of Labour and Welfare (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Ida Thue) v. A (Counsel Henrik Grønhaug)
Justices: Indreberg, Matheson, Ringnes, Falch, Steinsvik
A woman with somatic and mental illness had been granted work assessment allowance and then ordinary disability benefit. Her claim for increased disability benefit under the special rules for young disabled people, see section 12-13 subsection 3 of the National Insurance Act, was rejected by NAV and the National Insurance Appeals Council. In contrast to the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the requirement of serious and permanent illness before the age of 26 had not been met. It was stated that it is the severity of the medical disorder that must be assessed when deciding whether the condition of serious illness is met. The person's individual low level of functioning is then of less importance. The requirement further presupposes a rather large deviation from the medical minimum required to receive ordinary disability benefit. In the individual assessment, it was stated that the woman's medical disorders overall were not so severe that they reached the threshold in section 12-13 subsection 3. The illnesses were of a milder and lighter nature and relatively common in the population. Her low level of functioning could then not imply that the severity condition had been met. The Supreme Court also found that the woman's income before disability should be determined based on the average income in the industry in which she worked before the disability, and not on the hypothesis that she would have qualified for high-paid work if she had been healthy and not become disabled. The Supreme Court found in favour of the State.